On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Henrik Nordström henrik@henriknordstrom.net wrote:
tor 2014-06-26 klockan 21:47 +0100 skrev Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
and you know what? i'm actually relieved, because this is supposed to be a decade-long standard. if we'd had the funding, we would have gone ahead, the EOMA68 standard would have SATA and it would have about one SoC available per two years *or less*.
Agreed.
the changes i've made since it started open it up to 23or more SoCs *per year*. i am also considering - reluctantly - reserving the 5.0mm card height for 1280x800 capable SoCs and the 3.3mm card height for 1920x1080 SoCs (over the 24-pin RGB/TTL that is)
Why? I don't get it.
For 1920x1080+ LVDS / DSI / eDP is much better suited interfaces imho.
.. for which there exist conversion ICs. if however you try to get anything *other* than an RGB/TTL-to-{INSERT-INTERFACE-HERE} IC you run into huge costs and licensing issues.
No. But RGB/TTL is likely fading quickly as display density increases.
... for which there exist conversion ICs.
with over 2,000 active LCD panels on panellook.com do you see RGB/TTL being retired in the next 10 years?
Outside the low-end product spectrum yes, obviously.
and above that low-end product spectrum there exist conversion ICs.
... except doesn't take a stand on GPL violations, and distributes illegal copyright-violating product, but _apart_ from that they "believe in OSHW", yes.
It's a hardware company, not a software company. Their software development resources are very limited, and do take these infringements seriously.
not seriously enough. you know the law. if you cannot comply, you must cease and desist distribution.
or you operate as a criminal cartel.
no i am fully aware that the CPU Cards have "less interfaces" quotes. that is entirely deliberate, as the interfaces had to be:
And I was not critizing EOMA there.
in this way we can ensure that even the lowliest SoC (for example the IC1T which is barely struggling to meet the absolute minimum of EOMA68 requirements) stands a chance.
Is that at all a desireable goal?
Timewarp two years, would such device have any reuse value at all by then?
as a lower-spec'd reusable board for someone else? yes, absolutely. that's the whole point: down-stream the hardware.
Same applies to the other half of EOMA, the base-board (or perhaps better named base-device). The EOMA idea only makes sense if pieces are up to a level that reuse and upgrade makes sense.
Or in other words, any EOMA device designed today need to be designed with the goal of being valuable to reuse in at least 2-3 years time.
Any device manufactured at the lower range of todays standard is very unlikely to have any meaningful value in two to three years in the same consumer group.
i expect the 2nd-hand market on ebay to take care of that.
if we had put e.g. CSI or TS on, or eDP or MIPI, then only the absolute absolute top-end SoCs could be included,
today yes, unless you accept to throw in a converted chip, which is hard doe to the extreme tight space requirements in the EOMA standards.
.... exactly, which is why that problem is moved to the base-board.
it's the base-board where you put the converter ICs.
take a look on chrontel's web site.
tell me how many DVI-to-{INSERTINTERFACE} converter ICs there are.
tell me how many eDP-to-{INSERTINTERFACE} converter ICs there are.
_now_ compare that to how many RGB/TTL-to-{INSERTINTERFACE} converter ICs there are.
ok. too much time being spent. gotta go.